Either you do not read newspapers, listen to the news, or watch television if you are not familiar with the Trayvon Martin homicide case in which the “stand-your-ground laws of Florida factored in significantly. Such laws give individuals the right to use deadly force, including the use of firearms, to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. In such situations, a person is justified in using deadly force, and the stand-your-ground law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. In most states with sand-your-ground laws, limitations apply as to the situation. There may be a distinction about whether the concept applies only to defending lawfully occupied locations, which was not the case in the Martin case. States have differing approaches to the distinction between immunity and a defense. In general, an immunity bars civil suit, criminal charges, arrest and detention. A defense–on the other hand—is a fact or set of facts that may avoid or mitigate the adverse legal consequences of the defendant’s otherwise unlawful conduct. In some states this may be limited only to an affirmative defense—a concept applying to both civillawsuits and criminal charge. That defense is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which–if proven by the defendant–defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant’s conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, and waiver. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self-defense,insanity, and the statute of limitations.
Most states have some form of stand-your-ground law and many of them link those laws with castle doctrine described in BlogPosts 1-4 of this series. There is considerable difference among the states. Some have laws; some have assumed policies; some use case law; and some use definite legislation. Michigan’s law is clear but has some grey areas: MCL 780.972, provides that “[a]n individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if . . . [t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent” the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual. The grey area comes in the wording. The “reasonable belief” requirement is different from a “sincere belief”, meaning that a “reasonable person” should be able to examine the situation and see a threat to life or serious injury. On the other end of the spectrum is California. California provides civil remedy to those who incur damages resulting from the use of self-help by a defender,and the CaliforniaSupreme Court has been critical of the doctrine since 1858. It is not difficult to understand that considerable controversy occurs whenever the issue arises in court, or in public debate wherever the subject is broached.
How should reasonable people or a court view a person who is mugged at gunpoint then shoots the mugger in the back as he is running away? It could be argued that he person who was mugged might “sincerely” believe the mugger was going to turn around and shoot him or her. It could also be argued that such a defense is too subjective and not considered to be “reasonable” under the circumstances. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin—a stipulated fact in his trial in Florida. The jury acquittedZimmerman. The relevance of the stand-your-ground provision of the self-defense law to the Zimmerman case has been questioned and is controversial, political, and has racial overtones. The defense argument that carried the day was that Zimmerman claimed he was restrained at the time of the shooting and had no option to retreat. Although Zimmerman’s defense team did not use the “stand your ground” defense during their trial and instead opted to use “self-defense” as their official defense, Circuit Judge Debra Nelson’s instructions to the jury included the statement that he had no duty to retreat as per Florida’s stand-your-ground law. The Zimmerman/Martin case will be debated whenever issues of reasonableness, stand-your-ground, or self-defense arise.
The concept of justifiable homicide in in common sense, criminal law, and civil action turns on the lines between excuse, justification, and exculpation; and many opinions and case outcomes are based on the thinker or the trier-of-fact’s interpretation of any or all of those considerations. A ruling of justifiable homicide in a criminal proceeding, it must objectivelyproved to a trier of fact—jury or judge– beyond all reasonable doubt, not just to a level of preponderance of evidence–that the defendant intended to commit violence. If that cannot be proved, a homicide in this instance is should be ruled blameless. There is a considerably less stringent set of criteria authorizing deadly force in stand-your- ground rulingsin states where they apply.The degree of response as matched to the degree of threat may be tested. If the level of force used in defense matches the force threatened. It is significant if the putative victor in a conflict first retreated or showed a clear intention not to fight but then was obligated to do so for self-preservation. This decision may hinge on questions of whether or not avoidance was possible in the time available. If true, the killer may be exculpated. Obviously, a victim who escapes may not return for revenge or to prevent future attacks.
Obvious justification under the law throughout the United States and in most countries exists for killing by a combatant during an officially declared war, protection against external aggressors during incursions, police officers killing suspects in the line of duty, and judicial execution. There is a doctrine of necessitywhich allows–for example–a surgeon to separate conjoined twins, killing the weaker twin to save the other. Under certain circumstances, It may be necessary to abort a baby during labor if the mother’s life is threatened, but Roman Catholic doctrine takes the opposite view—sacrifice the mother. All of these instances constitute non-criminal homicide. The United States and much of the world condones abortion as a “woman’s choice”, but American law across the board considers feticide to constitute a double murder whena pregnant woman is the victim of homicide—a rather schizophrenic approach to the death of unborn infants.
Several civilized countries—Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg and not the United States–condone euthanasia in certain circumstances. Assisted suicide is homicide where the individual/patient has to make the decision and to take the final action themselves–unlike euthanasia where an another person kills to relieve suffering–is legal in Switzerland. There are assisted dying laws, for terminally ill mentally competent adults only, in the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Vermont.